Language Communication Severo Makoni 2013

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

Discourses of language in colonial and postcolonial Brazil

Cristine Gorski Severo a,1, Sinfree Bullock Makoni b,⇑a Federal University of Santa Catarina, Campus Universitário Reitor João David Ferreira Lima, Trindade, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina 88040-900, Brazilb Pennsylvania State University, Department of Applied Linguistics, The College of Liberal Arts, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16801, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 19 September 2013

Keywords:DiversityPortugueseTranslationIndigenous communitiesGrammarsDictionaries

a b s t r a c t

Sparse literature on colonial and postcolonial discourses in English addresses discoursepractices of colonial and contemporary Brazil. We argue that analyzing the relationshipbetween colonialism, post colonialism, and national identity is complicated because therelationship between these processes is constantly evolving. Colonial Brazil was character-ized by a massive production of grammars and dictionaries of indigenous languages expe-dited by the use of translation which resulted in the diversification of genres in indigenouslanguages through creation of hybrid genres that appropriate Old Portuguese genres toserve new social purposes. In postcolonial Brazil, the relationship between language andBrazilian nationality was a source of conflict surrounding which variety of Portuguesecould be used to imagine Brazil as a nation. In contemporary Brazil, language diversity inte-grates the Brazilian internal political agenda, and paradoxically, language homogenizationis a defining feature of Brazilian foreign policy, especially Brazil’s role in promoting thespread of Portuguese. Throughout the history of Brazil, tension has existed among dis-courses whose objective is to promote language diversity, local resistance, and strategicuse of these discourses. We argue that interest in linguistic diversity and promotion ofindigenous languages does not necessarily imply protection of a variety of cultures andmultiple ways of thinking in the world. We finally argue that Lusitanization can be usedas a framework to understand the colonial and immediate postcolonial discourse practices.The framework, however, has to be situated within a global geo-politics as the relationshipbetween Brazil and other South American countries emerge.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Background

This article is a continuation of colonial linguistics research (Errington, 2008) reflected in some of the work of Blommaert(2008) and Irvine (2008) and interest in diversity as manifested in the invention of indigenous languages (Makoni and Pen-nycook, 2007; Makoni, 2013). Some research by the aforementioned scholars emphasizes translation and the production ofgrammars and dictionaries as social artifacts and practices of social control. Even though our work builds upon research byBlommaert, Irvine, Makoni and others, it makes three important contributions: (1) theoretical, (2) geographical and histor-ical contexts, and (3) the geo-politics of Lusitanization (i.e., the spread of Portuguese in diverse contexts such as Mozam-bique, Angola, and Cape Verde). Theoretically, the paper’s colonial linguistics framework is expanded by drawing on thephilosophies of Michel Foucault. Secondly, our contribution arises from the range of contexts in which social grammarsand dictionaries as artifacts, language invention, and translation are studied by situating them in colonial and postcolonialBrazil. We are referring primarily postcolonial here to refer to the period immediately before and immediately after Brazilianindependence even though the idea of postcolonial to refer to the period after independence into an unforeseeable future, a

0271-5309/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.08.008

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 814 863 2431.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.G. Severo), [email protected] (S.B. Makoni).

1 Tel.: +55 48 3721 9293.

Language & Communication 34 (2014) 95–104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Language & Communication

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate / langcom


more robust geopolitical approach will have to be included, which takes cognizance of the power of regional blocks such asMercousul and Unasul who become key players as well ( Rajagopolan, 2008; Massini-Cagliari, 2004). Mercado Comun de Sur orPortuguese Mercado Commun de Sol are part of an economic block which is facilitating the development of South America tobe an integrated political and economic block in which Portuguese, Spanish and Gurani are the three official languages.

The impacts of the political and economic blocks on contemporary Brazil are mitigated by the imagined belief that Brazilis predominantly a Portuguese speaking country. We illustrate how diversity in Brazil has been produced by governmental,educational, academic, and local (indigenous) discourses and language practices and how the meaning also varies accordingto participants’ socio-historical contexts and ideologies. Third, our paper briefly explores the tensions between the conflict-ing roles of diversity within Brazil and homogeneity in the Brazilian Lusitanization project in contemporary geopolitics of amultipolar world.

2. Structure and organization of the paper

In light of the above contexts, we organize our paper into three sections: First, we explore the colonial and missionaryinterest in the invention of language diversity (Makoni and Pennycook, 2007) through a combination of colonial linguistics(Errington, 2008) and Foucault’s (1980a,b, 2000) works on power relations. In this section, we consider missionary priests’production of dictionaries and grammars (Auroux, 1992) as an instrument of control of others (Foucault, 2010). Thesecond section aims to problematize the Brazilian governmental and academic interest, appropriation, and productionof language diversity in contemporary Brazilian bilingual educational and cultural policies (Severo, 2013). Finally, weexplore the complex nature of language diversity in Brazil by considering indigenous ways of appropriation, reproduction,or reinvention of the missionary, governmental and academic understandings of language diversity. We conclude theessay by using Lusitanization as a political and theoretical framework an approach we expand on in subsequent workin which we analyze the role of Lusitanization in shaping language policies and practices of ex-Portuguese colonies,Angola, and East Timor.

3. Language diversity in colonial linguistics

Between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, interest in linguistic diversity in colonial Brazil was strong due to boththe spread of Christianity and Lusitanization. These are closely linked, even though, for the sake of clarity, we may treat themseparately at times. The linkage between the Catholic Church and Portugal is evident in the agreement between the two inwhich the right to manage churches was to be carried out by Portuguese monarchs. An integral part of the spread of Chris-tianity and Lusitanization was the grammatization (Auroux, 1992) of language and production of dictionaries for pedagogicalpurposes and as part of a general interest among the Portuguese in categorizing the world around them. Grammatization re-fers to the development of grammars for indigenous languages. The priority in Lusitanization was teaching Portuguese inindigenous communities.

Because of the arrangements between the Catholic Church and Portugal as part of Lusitanization ideology, the Portuguesecolonial government was tasked with building churches, developing parishes, choosing and designating religious ministers,and keeping Jesuit missions among the so-called indigenous peoples. The spread of Catholicism (i.e., catechization) was facil-itated by the role of interpreters during confessions. The development of bilingualism in indigenous languages and Portu-guese was facilitated by children of both Portuguese settlers and indigenous people in early colonial Brazil attending thesame schools and learning in the same classrooms (Freyre, 1933/2003; de Lima, 2001). Adult bilingualism took hold amongmissionaries, some of whom felt obliged to learn local languages as part of their evangelization enterprise, as apparent in theextract below:

‘‘uma das competências essenciais do evangelizador é, segundo Manoel da Nóbrega, o domínio da língua, fruto da graça de quetodo missionário é dotado’’2 (Daher, 1998, 2).

The ultimate objective of description of indigenous languages was to systematize them using grammatization (Auroux,1992), dictionary-making, and translations was to facilitate incorporation of Portuguese Catholic logic within the indigenouslanguage: ‘‘a língua tupi deve inscrever-se na temporalidade da ordem da racionalidade do Império português, na homologia dalíngua portuguesa’’3 (Daher, 1998, 4). In other words, the discourse of the colonizer was inscribed on the Tupi language, as illus-trated by the verse taught by Jesuits and sung by Indian boys: ‘‘The Virgin Mary / Tupan ey êté / Aba pe ara porá / Oicó endêyabê.’’The translation would be, ‘‘Oh Virgin Mary, true God’s mother, the men of this world are well with you’’ (Freyre, 1933/2003,111). Another example would be the translation of the Hail Maria prayer as ‘‘Ave Maria, graça resé tynysémbae (Hail Mary, fullof grace)’’ (Filho, 2008, 185). In this article unlike other authors we argue that the idea of a description of language may be inap-propriate because it inadvertently supports the idea of language as a primordial entity. It is the assumption of naturalness andprimordially which we are ideologically questioning.

2 ‘‘One of the core competencies in the evangelist, according to Manoel da Nobrega, is the mastery of the language, fruit of grace that every missionary isendowed with.’’

3 ‘‘The Tupi language should enroll in the temporality and in the rational order of the Portuguese Empire, in the homology to the Portuguese language.’’

96 C.G. Severo, S.B. Makoni / Language & Communication 34 (2014) 95–104


Grammatization, on the one hand, led to development of a discourse of heterogeneity; on the other hand, the use of adiscourse of Catholicism and Lusitanization led to a discourse of homogeneity, as different languages were embedded inthe same discourse. Because of the promotion of indigenous languages, grammatization and Lusitanization, therefore, dis-cursively materialized in the language of the colonized. Consequently, the promotion and official use of local languages doesnot by itself guarantee the conservation or ‘‘protection’’ of local cultures and identities or indigenous frames of thought andexperience, nor does it guarantee retention of indigenous communities’ cultural rights (Makoni, 2011). Thus, if catechizationin indigenous languages tells us that the (de)colonization process happens at another level, which belongs to the order ofdiscourse and not to the order of language-structure, the promotion of linguistic diversity by some contemporary officialspeeches and linguistic research does not guarantee discursive and cultural heterogeneity.

The colonial period was characterized by a profusion of many literary linguistic productions in colonial Brazil, as illus-trated by the following examples (Daher, 1998; Fávero, 2001; Zwartjes, 2011; Fernandes, 2013):

(1) The publication of a grammar of the Old Tupi by José de Anchieta (1534–1597), who wrote, among other works, (a) TheArt of Grammar of the Most Widely Spoken Language on the Coast of Brazil (1955, 1595), (b) the Catechism in Brasilicalanguage with the summa of the Christian doctrine (1618), (c) many letters addressed to the Portuguese crown, (d) lit-erary texts (poems and epics), and (e) theological interpretations (Daher, 1998).

(2) The writing by Luis Figueroa (1573–1643) of The Grammar Art of Brasilia Language (1621) (Fávero, 2001).(3) A systematization of the Quiriri indigenous language (1698) by Louis Vincentia Mamiani (1652–1730).(4) The systematization of the African language Kimbundu (1697) by Pedro Dias (1621–1700) (Batista, 2005, 2001); and

the systematization of the language of Mina (1731 and 1741) by António da Costa Peixoto (Fernandes, 2013).(5) The translation into indigenous languages of many Catholic texts, such as homilies, spiritual daily practices, gospels,

doctrines, biographies of saints and Christ, sacraments’ manuals, prayers, religious poems, and hymns, by Antony Vie-ira into five Indian languages – the General language of the Coast and the Nheengaíbas’, Bocas’, Jurunas’ and Tapajós’languages (Daher, 1998).

Grammatization was a form of knowledge production in which knowledge was produced and acquired the status of truthunder certain rational rules rather than divine or natural rules. Indigenous languages were modeled after Latin grammarsand were part of knowledge production that included the following arts: rhetoric, poetics, logic, geometry, arithmetic,and astronomy. Although there were many genres of knowledge, ‘‘Grammar becomes, during the monastic Middle Ages,the art par excellence, one whose importance outweighs the other’’ (Buescu, 1984; Fávero, 2001, 62).

Knowledge production as evident in other geographical regions such as Africa was not the monopoly of missionaries butwas also carried out by some European travelers as well. While the missionaries were primarily pre-occupied with the pro-duction of a linguistic knowledge, the travelers produced discourses on Brazil in the following genres: notes and diaries withillustrations, such as the work by Oliveira (Freire, 1933/2003). The travelers included André de Thevet (1502–1590); Pero deMagalhães Gandavo (1540–1580), who wrote the Tratado da Terra do Brasil [Treaty of Brazil] (1576); Hans Staden (1525–1579), wrote Two Trips to Brazil (1557); and Jean de Lery (1534–1611), who narrated the Story of a Journey to the Land of Brazil(1578) and subsequently inspired Lévi-Strauss in the production of Tristes Tropiques: ‘‘Léry left to Brazil at the age of twenty-two or twenty-three, I was twenty-six when I left for the same tri Léry waited eighteen years to write his travel, I waitedfifteen to write Tristes Tropiques’’4 (Lévi-Strauss, 1994 apud Lestringant, 2000, 87). Both knowledge production (by missionariesand travelers) were not objective enterprises but were sophisticated players in support of a colonial enterprise whose ultimatelycontrol was to construct and manage discourses about language.

4. The modern states and language diversity

The historical works of Foucault pointed out that, from the sixteenth century on, the states began to be organized arounda certain rationality whose purpose would be the State’s strengthening, instead of the relationship of the Prince to the State.This reason of state is seen as an ‘‘art,’’ a technique that works according to certain rules (which, by nature, are rational ratherthan divine, natural, or human) that aim at the production of truth (Foucault, 2000, 2007). Political reason is constituted byknowledge production that takes the State as something to be analyzed, desired, calculated, and understood. Mercantilism –aiming to enrich the State – would be a rudimentary form of rationalization of the State; more elaborate knowledge wouldinclude statistics (knowledge of the State’s resources) and economics (a form of resource management).

The good functioning of the State, appropriate individuals and population management, and maintenance of state forceswould be guaranteed by two apparatus (dispositif): (1) a military-diplomatic one, acting in relation to other states, and (2) apolice one, acting within the boundaries of the State (Foucault, 2007). More specifically on the police apparatus with a colo-nial purpose, Foucault (1980a, 17) states:

Those who were sent to the colonies did not take on a proletarian status. They were used as cadres, administrativefunctionaries, as tools of surveillance and control over the colonized peoples. And it was certainly in order to avoid the

4 ‘‘Léry partiu para o Brasil aos vinte e dois ou vinte e três anos; eu tinha vinte e seis quando parti para a mesma viagem. Léry esperou dezoito anos paraescrever sua Viagem, eu esperei quinze para escrever Tristes trópicos.’’

C.G. Severo, S.B. Makoni / Language & Communication 34 (2014) 95–104 97


forming of an alliance between these ‘‘lesser whites’’ and the colonized peoples [. . .] that a rigid racist ideology wasfoisted on them: ‘‘Watch out, you’ll be living among cannibals.’’

In other words, the colonizing strategy was to maintain a split and a hierarchy in the colony between colonizers and col-onized. Identification between the colonizer and the colonized plebeian could establish a resistance movement against theEuropean proletariat and the bourgeoisie. What wouldn’t have allowed this alliance was racism (Foucault, 1980a; Quijano,2000). Paradoxically, in colonial Brazil, miscegenation was used as a colonizing strategy by the Crown and the Church in thesixteenth century: ‘‘o casamento e o concubinato entre portugueses e índias, uma política da Coroa para os primórdios dacolonização, foi crucial no processo de dominação portuguesa’’5 (de Oliveira, 2009, 187). Thus, paradoxically, racism was in-scribed in the apparent appeasement of differences through miscegenation, though, for the Catholic Church, Polygamy was seenas repugnant. Miscegenation did not indicate ‘‘friendly’’ marriages and alliances; rather, it resulted from the rape of indigenousand black women: ‘‘Um dos maiores símbolos da conquista foi a mulher indígena, sobre quem recaíram as mais violentas con-sequências da colonização [. . .]. Assim como o homem, sofreu com as imposições do varão europeu, mas ainda teve destruídoscorpo, sexualidade, subjetividade’’6 (Huzioka, 2010, 2).

The development of the science of state was possible due to demographic expansion in the seventeenth century, when thepopulation emerged as a governmental target to be managed. These facts allowed the connection between the science ofgovernment, the population problem, and the centralization of political economy to become the main way of understandingthe art of government. The population as the target of the State’s reason implies that, when objectified, the population istransformed into an object of knowledge. Statistics play an important role in the constitution of knowledge about popula-tions by, for example, raising rates of birth and death, education, epidemics, public health and sickness, etc. This practiceof knowledge production about the population yields, as a political effect, the possibility of governing the conduct of indi-viduals who are made the object of a rationality that aims to both manage their lives and grant them the necessary security.

This article argues that, from the sixteenth century on, the interest in linguistic diversity worked as the target of a reasonof state, and especially in the colonial period, religion was operating inside this reason that the dictionary became a theo-logical instrument (de Certeau, 1988). Although the primary objective was to evangelize and spread Christianity, languageinvention served as important an important project to accomplish their objectives. The two processes i.e. spread of Christian-ity and language invention are so intricately interwoven that except for expository purposes the two in practice cannot beeasily distinguished from each other. From an ideological perspective it was not only people who were converted but lan-guages which were framed through a Christianized scripts.

While discussing the phenomenon of grammatization of European languages, Auroux (1992) explains that, from the latefifteenth century on, production of formalized knowledge (dictionaries and grammars) about languages had been intense,not just in Europe but also in other European colonies across the globe by missionaries from different countries. For example,at the end of the sixteenth century, Latin American linguistic production consisted of the grammatization of 33 languages. Inthe following century, this number increased to 96 languages, and in the eighteenth century, there were 158 grammatizedlanguages (Auroux, 1992). With these numbers, Auroux diagnoses, although he does not problematize, this intense gramma-tization in Europe, and in no other continent, could be seen as ‘‘um problem histórico e epistemológico de grande importâ-ncia, ao qual não se consagrou um estudo profundo’’7 (Auroux, 1992, 42).

We believe European interest in languages considered ‘‘exotic’’ was not casual but involved a ‘‘will to know’’ about theother – in religious and/or in scientific terms – that characterizes what would be the ‘‘colonial apparatus’’ (Lopes da Silva,2006; Mariani, 2004) working within a reason of state that took form in sixteenth century Europe. According to Foucault(2007), Europe in this period can be understood in relation to non-uniform geographical division consisting of relativelyautonomous states that dominated the rest of the world through colonization ratified during the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies by various official treaties.

The colonial apparatus (dispositif) is not restricted to colonial planned actions by the State but encompasses ‘‘athoroughly heterogeneous ensemble consisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws,administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions–in short, the said asmuch as the unsaid’’ (Foucault, 1980b, 194). In the case of the argument undertaken in this article, the grammatizationor, in Foucauldian terms, the ‘‘will to know’’ about language diversity working within this apparatus logically consistsof other varied and heterogeneous elements. The colonial apparatus, as constitutive of the reason of the State,encompassed languages as objects of knowledge and political discourses – something to be mobilized, scrutinized,systematized, and named according to certain procedures of power. From the sixteenth century on, such proceduresentailed the systematization of languages in terms of sounds, structure (grammatical), and lexicon (dictionary), aimingfor both description and pedagogization, since evangelization and pedagogical instruction were mutually implicated(Daher, 1998). Besides these linguistic products, there was also production in local languages of catechisms, vocabularies,and word lists (Batista, 2005).

5 ‘‘Marriage and cohabitation between Portuguese and Indian women, as a policy of the Crown in the early days of colonization, was crucial in the process ofPortuguese domination.’’

6 ‘‘One of the greatest symbols of the conquest was the indigenous woman, over whom the most violent consequences of colonization fell [. . .]. Just like themen, they suffered with the impositions of European man, but still had the body, sexuality and subjectivity destroyed.’’

7 ‘‘A historical and epistemological problem of great importance, on which a deep study was not made yet.’’



From the colonial period on, the ‘‘will to know’’ about language diversity worked within a reason of State, being associ-ated primarily with the religious sphere and, from the nineteenth century on, to a certain scientism. In this scientific domain,from the 1870s on, ‘‘teorias como o evolucionismo social, o positivismo, o naturalismo e o social darwinismo [. . .] começam ase difundir [. . .] tendo como horizonte de referência o debate sobre os fundamentos de uma cultura nacional’’8 (Schwarcz,2008, 28). In this rational State, from the 19th century on, the production of linguistic knowledge was centered in the consti-tution of a Brazilian variety of Portuguese language (Massini-Cagliari, 2004) and from the 20th on, Brazilian government focusedits attention in the production of linguistic knowledge about the ‘‘surviving’’ Indigenous and African languages from the colonialperiod in Brazil. The invention of the indigenous ‘‘língua geral’’ (general language) in colonial Brazil by the missionary priestsworked within a religious framework in favor of a colonial dispositif. Lingua geral recurred in different parts of the world as asearch to harmonize local languages and engendered conflicting responses in Africa (Makoni et al., 2007).

5. The role of academies

In the eighteenth century, literature, language academies, and compilations of official interpretations of law were createdto serve as instruments of implementation and control of knowledge production. It is important to understand that thenormativity took place during the dictatorship of Marquis of Pombal (Franco, 2007). The creation of such Directories werepart of an strategy by the Portuguese Crown to pursue more direct control over its colonies, which would allow it to manageindigenous groups, confiscate their lands, promote Portuguese as an official language, expel the Jesuits, transform villagesinto small towns, transfer administration to a manager instead of the Jesuits, integrate trade and agriculture as economicactivities for indigenous peoples, promote interethnic marriage, and open schools to indigenous peoples (de Oliveira,2009; Mariani, 2001).

6. Language diversity in modern governmental and academic discourses and practices

The end of Portuguese colonialism and the split between Catholicism and the Portuguese led to Brazilian ports opening toforeign vessels, which facilitated the entry of Protestant immigrants into the country. The entry of Protestant missionariesinto Brazil weakened the Catholic Church’s role in the Christianization process: ‘‘O Brasil começou a desvendar um mundomais amplo do que o estreitamente português e católico. Iniciou-se uma nova conquista colonial, aparentemente pacífica eliberal, a ‘‘conquista burguesa’’ do Brasil.’’9 (Hoornaert, 1992 apud de Oliveira, 2008, 12). Therefore, the coming of Protestantmissions to Brazil favored a final rupture of the alliance between Lusitanization and Christianization. The massive influx of Prot-estant missions into Brazil, especially during the reign of King Pedro II (1825–1891), is paralleled to the spread of Enlightenmentideology and the expansion of capitalism in Brazil: ‘‘no século XIX as igrejas protestantes norte-americanas trazem para o Brasiluma fé jingoística, que aceita incondicionalmente as promessas do Iluminismo como interpretado pelos norte-americanos’’10

(Cavalcanti, 2001, 64).Protestant missions managed schools and incorporated an evangelical education into their curriculum. For example, the

Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) was a ‘‘mission that had joined the Latin American indigenous movement named asIndigenous Interamerican Institute. Graduated from American universities, the SIL members seemed as ‘‘scientists’’ (i.e., lin-guists) which sometimes hid the missionary side of their work’’11 (de Oliveira and Freire, 2006, 147–148). That missionachieved government recognition in 1960 due to the mediation of intellectuals like the Brazilian anthropologist Darcy Ribeiro.During the period of military dictatorship.

In Brazil (1964–1985), that mission was successful in closing the, National Indian Foundation, even though the Bibletranslator work had been considered, in some cases, as a focus of governmental interest in political espionage. Another ‘‘effi-cient’’ religious mission was the New Tribes Mission that, in 1950, assembled more than 100 missionaries in Brazil. In manydifferent Brazilian states since the early twentieth century (e.g., in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul with the evangelization ofthe Kaiowa people and in the state of Pará, alongside the Xingu River), the presence of evangelical missions led to the con-version of the Kayapo people to Christianity.

It is critically important to maintain awareness of the differences between Catholic and Protestant missionaries. Inpractice, Catholics tended to seek to convert indigenous communities, integrating them into Western cultural practices,and protecting local and indigenous cultural and language rights, especially after the encyclical Gaudium ET Spes and thecreation of a National Secretariat for Missionary Activity by the Brazilian National Bishop Conference. On the other hand,Protestant missions have maintained a practice of acculturation of indigenous peoples (de Oliveira and Freire, 2006).

8 ‘‘Theories such as social evolutionism, positivism, naturalism and social Darwinism [. . .] started to spread [. . .] having as a horizon of reference the debateon the foundations of a national culture.’’

9 ‘‘Brazil began to unveil a wider world than the narrow Portuguese and Catholic one. A new colonial conquest began, apparently peaceful and liberal, the‘‘bourgeois conquest’’.

10 ‘‘In the nineteenth century, U.S. Protestant churches bring to Brazil a faith that accepts unconditionally the promises of Enlightenment as interpreted byNorth Americans.’’

11 ‘‘missão que havia se aliado ao indigenismo estatal latino-americano representado pelo Instituto Indigenista Interamericano. Graduados em universidadesamericanas, os integrantes do SIL apareciam como ‘‘cientistas’’ (isto é, linguistas) que em certas ocasiões ocultavam o lado missionário de sua atuação’’.



However, the entrance of scientific ideologies in Brazil was not only through Protestant doctrine and practice. With thecoming of the royal family to Brazil in the nineteenth century (when Napoleon’s troops invaded Portugal), the creation ofcultural institutions (e.g., the press, libraries, museums, botanical gardens), academic institutions (e.g., schools of law inthe states of San Paulo and Recife) and research institutions (e.g., The History and Geography Institute, The Bio-ManguinhosInstitute) motivated the formation of an intellectual group that started to take part in social movements. Many of these intel-lectuals shared the ideologies of the Enlightenment, Darwinism, and positivism and defended abolitionist, republican, andnationalist causes, besides the separation of church and state. For these intellectuals, the separation of church and statewas about to scientifically legitimize or support their positions in institutions to which they belonged. Scientism worked in-side the practices of government, legitimizing its discourses and practices. Dom Pedro II, the last emperor of Brazil, can beconsidered a Political symbol of the fusion between science and government, just as Louis XIV repeatedly asserted, ‘‘The sci-ence is me’’ (Schwarcz, 2008).

The production of such knowledge was, of course, according to certain rational rules that guided the observer into animagined objective situation. (Foucault, 1966/1990). Among the naturalists who categorized botanicals ‘‘and animals’’ fea-tures were Saint-Hilaire, Carl Philipp Von-Martius, Edward Pohl, and Johann Von Spix. Among the militaries was LeitholdRaugo. The experts of the Crown included the mineralogist Eschwege. There were also members from the English and Frenchbourgeoisies, like John Luccock, Koster, and Tollenare (Kury, 2001; Lahuerta, 2006).

In the nineteenth century, the search for a national identity, a central issue in Brazil, was faced with linguistic tensionbetween diversity and uniformity concerning the status of Portuguese and its ‘‘Brazilian’’ varieties. Other than in literarytexts, ample literature shed light on the national identity debate and its ties to a particular Portuguese language variety(i.e., ‘‘Brazilian language‘‘), as seen in the literary works of Gonçalves Dias, José de Alencar, Aluisio Azevedo, Machado de As-sis, and Souza Cruz. Contrary to the position taken by the aforementioned authors, one group of grammarians was devoted tothe prescriptive systematization of Brazilian Portuguese on the basis of a European model codified by Portuguese grammar-ians (Martins, 2008). The differences in view in either supporting endorsement of Brazilian varieties or a normative perspec-tive of Portuguese were apparent in debates around in which language or language variety the Civil Code of the Republicshould be written and the controversy between the jurist Rui Barbosa, in support of a classical tradition, against his formerteacher, the philologist Ernesto Carneiro Ribeiro, in favor of the vernacular. Another debate involved the writer José de Alen-car, who was in favor of ‘‘Brazilianisms,’’ and the grammarian Gladstone Chaves de Melo (Pagotto, 1999; Martins, 2008).Incorporating local dialects and varieties in Brazilian literature was intensified during the 1922 Modern Art Week, whenthe Manifesto of Pau-Brazil Poetry (1924) by Oswald de Andrade outlined language’s political role in the creation of a nationalidentity: ‘‘Language without archaisms, without erudition. . . a million contribution of all errors. The millionaire contributionof all the errors. The way we speak. The way we are.’’12

After the 1930s, the issue of linguistic diversity in the governmental sphere was evident, for example, by the approval ofthe Orthographic Agreement of 1932 and the policy for nationalizing education, which included the prohibition of immi-grants’ languages (Germany, Japanese, and Italian) during the dictatorial period of Vargas Era (1937–1945). On the otherhand, the intellectual-academic sphere paradoxically increased the knowledge production about language diversity in Brazil:The Caipira dialect, a variety spoken in the countryside of some Brazilian states, was described by Amadeu Amaral and pub-lished in 1920; Antenor Nascentes, in turn, described the dialect spoken in Rio de Janeiro (1922); the language of the North-east was described by Mario Marroquim (1934); Pereira da Costa listed the vocabulary of Pernambuco (1937); studies on thelanguage spoken in Goias were published in 1944; and in 1951 Edison Carneiro described and published the popular lan-guage of Bahia (Castilhos, 1972). The years 1920–1960 were also filled with publications by linguists Serafim da Silva Neto,Silveira Bueno, and Mattoso Câmara, among others, on linguistic theory and the history of Portuguese. All of them advocatedstudy of diversity/variability in the description of Brazilian Portuguese. Despite this discursive explosion around linguisticdiversity in Brazil, it was only in 1965, by a decision of the Federal Council of Education, that linguistics was effectively inte-grated into the curriculum of language graduation courses.

Currently, in Brazil, official discourses on national education tend to focus on and promote linguistic diversity. For exam-ple, the 1988 Constitution promotes Portuguese as the official language of the country but also recognizes the right of indig-enous communities to use their own languages in the learning process; the National Curriculum Parameters (Brasil, 1997a,b)recognize dialectal varieties and recommend their approach in the classroom; Federal Law 10.436 – April, 24 2002 recog-nizes Brazilian Sign Language so that schools will provide access to deaf people; Federal Law 11.161 of 2005 obliges theteaching of Spanish in Brazilian high schools; the Didactic Book National Program (PNLD, 2010) postulates that the teachingof Portuguese must consider language variation and dialect diversity in Brazil; finally, the Portuguese Language Exam of theNational High School Exam (ENEM, 2011) attaches great significance to linguistic variation.

In the cultural governmental sphere, in 2007 the Brazilian Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN) with theInstitute of Research and Development of Linguistic Policy (IPOL) and the Education and Culture Committee of the Houseof Representatives created a methodology for the National Inventory of Linguistic Diversity. In 2008, IPHAN launched aprogram to financially support research on the National Inventory of Linguistic Diversity and Intangible Cultural HeritageMapping, focusing on indigenous languages, languages of immigration, African-Brazilian languages, Creole languages, andsign languages.

12 This Manifesto was translated to English by Stella M. de Sá Rego and published in the Latin American Literary Review.



All these cases illustrate how, from the nineteenth century on, the constant shift between homogenization and heterog-enization of language confirms the political role of language diversity as an object of state interest. Indeed, the production ofdiversity by official discourses is taken as a condition of discursive homogenization.

7. Local conceptions about language

We present some current indigenous discourses and practices that challenge governmental and academic discourses onlanguage diversity in several aspects. The notion of language among indigenous Brazilians is neither homogeneous nor stablebut varies according to cultural background, academic formation in undergraduate or postgraduate Brazilian programs onintercultural education, and political engagement with indigenous causes in Brazil.

So far, we have described the different types of knowledge production by the Portuguese in collaboration with Jesuit mis-sionaries. Now, we turn to an analysis of perceptions and interpretations of indigenous languages by local communitiesthemselves, which vary according to communities’ experiences. For example, local indigenous teachers in the state of Acrein northern Brazil believe their local languages and culture are being ‘‘rescued’’ and revived because children are learning tosing traditional indigenous songs (Maher, 2010). Thus, singing local languages is taken as a symbol of knowing the local lan-guage, as noted in the narrated experience of these teachers: ‘‘durante esses tempos que. . . que a gente estava com os velhos. . .

eles sempre falavam que. . . que o homem MAIS inteligente, ele fala/ele diz tudo o que ele fala, cantando. . ..’’; ‘‘Então a gente achaque cantar é o ponto de partida das pessoas que. . . que TÊM muito saber’’13 (apud Maher, 2010). In this case, traditional and reli-gious indigenous songs have local cultural meanings that are not easily comprehensible to those who belong to non-indigenousculture because the Western idea of language proficiency is centered in conceptions of language that differ from the role of tra-ditional songs in the identity and cultural constitution of indigenous communities.

Local conceptions of social practices involving language have been the main theme of some indigenous writers in a recentmovement towards the construction and affirmation of indigenous literature. Munduruku (2013), an indigenous writer, de-scribes his grandfather teaching him how to read the signs of nature, rather than words, as if he were learning the ‘‘alphabetof nature.’’ Language, therefore, is not reduced to verbal language but involves the language of nature, songs, religious prac-tices, etc. To know a language means to be inscribed in local practices that constitute indigenous ways of understanding andbeing in the world. In Munduruku’s words, ‘‘Este alfabeto, que a natureza teima em manter vivo; esta escrita invisível aosolhos e coração do homem e da mulher urbanos, tem mantido as populações indígenas vivas em nosso imenso país.’’14

Fialho and Nascimento, (2009), an indigenous woman and education graduate who works in an indigenous, bilingual schoolin the state of Mato Grosso do Sul in Midwest Brazil, reports of a situation in her local community (Terena people) in which onlythe elderly speak the local language. This has motivated locals to ‘‘rescue’’ their identity through the creation of local projectscentered on teaching on teaching how to read and write in the local language. Invention and creation of indigenous languageswas motivated in part for the 1998 Brazilian constitutional prescription of the right of indigenous communities to use their lan-guage in educational contexts. Invention and creation of indigenous languages was motivated in part requirements since 1998for being accorded land by the Brazilian constitution: the right of indigenous communities to use their language in educationalcontexts. Therefore, a strong conception – also affirmed by the national constitution – exists that language and identity aremutually bonded and that recognizing and preserving local language means protecting local culture.

This recognition triggered several initiatives around the formalization of indigenous education in Brazil (Nincao, 2009)and pressures to rescue indigenous languages. Indigenous languages had to be formalized to be taught in indigenous schools.Formalization was carried out as part of indigenous educational language policy conducted by both indigenous and non-indigenous teachers. Formally-educated indigenous communities also drew upon Western language authorities and Westernmodels of language. For example, they cited Saussure to support local conceptions about language, even though Saussurewas not necessarily relevant to local indigenous language practices. It is also interesting that the relation of these indigenousscholars to their tradition and language is reconstructed as a response to globalizing and capitalist discourses: ‘‘não somos oque os capitalistas pensam como um fracassado que aceita tudo e em alguns anos iríamos nos dissolver no meio capitali-sta’’15 (Fialho and Nascimento, 2009, 9).

Another educational situation involving social practices around the preservation of local languages as a tool of identityaffirmation can be exemplified by an indigenous community (Tapuia people) in the state of Goias, in central Brazil, thatdid not have an ‘‘indigenous language’’ that could be considered a symbol of their indigeneity. The ‘‘rescue’’ of their historyrevealed that they originated from Portuguese, African, and Macro-jê indigenous people. This ‘‘miscegenation,’’ which wouldhave ‘‘eclipsed’’ the emergence of an indigenous language, favored the dominant presence of the Portuguese language. Thus,because they do not speak an indigenous language, non-indigenous people resist recognizing them as indigenous; rather,they are considered ‘‘negros sertanejos’’16 (Rezende, 2011). Furthermore, when the Tapuia teachers are with teachers fromother ethnic groups in a context of intercultural education, the Tapuais face prejudiced discourses that they do not have an

13 ‘‘During these times that . . . we were with the old men . . . they always said that . . . the MOST intelligent man says everything he says by singing . . .’’; ‘‘So wethink that singing is the starting point of people who . . . have much knowledge.’’

14 ‘‘This alphabet, that nature insists on keeping alive; this writing, invisible to the eyes and heart of urban man and woman, has kept indigenous populationsalive in our country.’’

15 ‘‘We are not what the capitalists think of as losers who accept everything and that in a few years would dissolve amidst capitalists.’’16 ‘‘Rural blacks’’.



‘‘original’’ indigenous language that could testify in favor of a local identity. The solution the Tapuia teachers found, with thehelp of non-indigenous scholars, was to consider their Portuguese, known as Tapuia-Portuguese, as their own language. Tap-uia-Portuguese would include specific functional, discursive, and structural features that have been studied and described byscholars from universities in the state of Goias and have been strategically used by teachers and students in their local schoolsas a signal of bidialectal identity.

8. Translation and language diversity and local indigenous people in Brazil: A dialogical view

In this section, we discuss translation in colonial Brazil as a political and religious instrument of Lusitanization and evan-gelization of indigenous people and the ways translated European texts were not passively received by indigenous peoples.Translation produced hybrid texts that combined Portuguese and indigenous discourses, creating new genres that did notexist prior to translation, such as confessions, plays, and lyrics. Translation also enhanced diversity with the use of Africanwords in religious contexts, although the words had new meanings. Translation, therefore, increased diversity, at least inform.

9. Struggles for the truth: The dialogical dimension of translation in colonial Brazil

During the colonial period, translation was used as a political, cultural, and religious strategy of domination. Such trans-lations not only involved the search for structural correspondences between languages but were also the translation of dis-courses and discursive genres (oral and written ones) that carried specific European and Christian worldviews. To exemplifythis aspect, José de Anchieta (1534–1597), a Jesuit missionary in Brazil, translated into the Tupi language – a general Brazilianindigenous language – three typical European genres: dialogues,17 lyrical poetry, and plays. The dialogues, widely present inSpain, were based on the Roman Catechism (the Disputatio Puerorum, a kind of pastoral guide, in use since the eleventh century)and aimed to shape people’s behavior according to Christian morality through a compositional structure that resembled the oralmodality. Lyrical poetry was sung and known in Portugal as the poetry of troubadours; such poetry, when translated into theindigenous language, adopted dualistic religious themes and a compositional structure in the form of rhymes:

Através dessa nova modalidade de criação de textos em língua indígena, Anchieta traduzia a tradição literária ibérica paraa cultura do nativo. Em suas poesias, a rima, a métrica e o ritmo são característicos da versificação românica e a sonor-idade é tupi (Filho, 2007, 77).18

We notice the hybrid dimension present in the translation process, revealing that the cultural mix also implies relationsof power and resistance. For example, the sonority of the Tupi language carried cultural meanings decipherable only to thoseimmersed in the local culture:

O Grande Som Primeiro – também chamado Tupã Tenondé, expressão desdobrada das palavras tu (som), pan (sufixoindicador de totalidade), tenondé (primeiro, início) – era como no século XVI os Tupinambá tentaram comunicar aos reli-giosos estrangeiros quando eram interrogados a respeito do conceito indígena de Deus; no entanto [. . .] aqueles que vie-ram do outro lado das Grandes Águas entenderam apenas um aspecto superficial desse Altíssimo Ser-Trovão (Jecupé,2001, 33).19

Finally, eight plays by Anchieta were all inspired by the Portuguese theater, particularly by Gil Vicente; included a mix-ture of indigenous, biblical, and historical characters; were plurilingual; and ended with music and dance as an attempt toincorporate the indigenous culture into the European format of the plays (Filho, 2008).

The process that characterized evangelization in colonial Brazil through the creation of grammars of indigenous lan-guages and the translation of Christian texts (by José de Anchieta, Luís Figueira, Louis Vincencio Mamiani, Leonardo do Valle,and Antonio Vieira, among others) was also characterized by a form of resistance by subjugated people. The diversity, resis-tance, and appropriation of religious discourses, ‘‘essa ‘‘tradução’’ foi re-traduzida, ou seja, de-codificada pelos destinatáriosindígenas da mensagem cristã: o resultado foi a produção de uma religião ‘‘híbrida’’, no interior de uma cultura de contato’’20

(Pompa, 2001, 80), laid foundations for the emergence of an indigenous Catholicism (Filho, 2008).The linguistic-discursive hybridisms produced by the translation process included the incorporation of Portuguese or

Latin words into the indigenous linguistic universe, lexical amalgam (Portuguese root words + indigenous affixes), Iberian

17 An example of translation of those dialogues to indigenous language can be found in the Chrestomathia da lingua brazilica (1859), by Ernesto Ferreira Franca,available at https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=QHMSAAAAYAAJandprintsec=frontcoverandoutput=readerandauthuser=0andhl=pt_BRandpg=GBS.PA181.

18 Through this new way of creating texts in indigenous languages, Anchieta translated the Iberian literary tradition to the native’s culture. In his poetry,rhyme, meter, and rhythm are typical of Romanic versification, but the sounding is Tupi (Filho, 2007, 77).

19 ‘‘The First Great Sound – also called Tupã Tenondé, expression originated from the words tu (sound), pan (suffix indicating completeness), Tenondé (the first,the beginning) – was how in the sixteenth century the Tupinambá people tried to communicate to the foreign religious when they were asked about theindigenous concept of God; yet [. . .] those who came across the Great Waters understood only a superficial aspect of that Almighty Thunder- Being’’ (Jecupé,2001, 33).

20 ‘‘This ‘‘translation’’ was re-translated, or de-coded by the indigenous addressee of the Christian message: the result was the production of a ‘‘hybrid’’religion, within a culture of contact’’ (POMPA, 2001, 80).



syntactic constructions in indigenous languages to express meanings that did not exist in these languages prior to transla-tion, and translators’ expansions and appropriation of indigenous meanings (Pompa, 2001; Filho, 2008). For example, mis-sionaries used the Tupi word Anhangá to designate ‘‘devil’’ in opposition to God (Tupa) and to demonize indigenous ritualsand behaviors. However, in the Indian cosmology, unlike a dualist European view, the same word designated a supernaturalelement that protected the forest and the animals, without the typical Christian negative connotation. Moreover, neologismswere created in Tupi to express Christian meanings: the word tupãoka (Tupã + Oka) – meaning house of God – designated‘‘church,’’ and the word ‘‘hell’’ was translated as Anhangá rata (fire of Anhangá). Such neologisms did not obviously carrythe same meanings in both cultures. Some words were not translated due to their symbolic meaning to the Church, suchas ‘‘Sunday,’’ ‘‘Virgin Mary,’’ and ‘‘Holy Church,’’ among others, as we notice in this prayer: ‘‘Hail Mary, grace rese tynysémbae(Hail Mary, full of grace)’’ (Filho, 2008).

Thus, one must consider, on the one hand, that, during the process of colonizing indigenous people in the Brazilian colo-nial period, colonial strategy focused on decoding and systematizing indigenous languages to promote and facilitate thetranslation of Portuguese and Christian discourses into a language that was ‘‘invented’’ by those instruments. On the otherhand, such European discourses were not passively appropriated by local people but were resignified/retranslated in light ofthe cultural universe of these peoples because ‘‘translation . . . is not a process that happens only in the translator’s head.Readers decide to accept or reject translations’’ (Lefevere, 2003, 5).

9. Conclusion

In this article we have sought to analyses the nature and role of discourse practices in light of colonialism and the con-temporary Brazilian philosophy of Lusitanization. To us the relations between colonial and postcolonial projects are con-stantly evolving, so as the relationship between Portugal and its ex-colonies. For example, Brazil has replaced Portugalwhich was the previous colonial country as currently the major player in Lusitanisation. This means that power relationsbetween Portugal and its ex-colonies are changing with Brazil being the dominant power in ex-Portuguese colonies. Cur-rently the status of Brazilian driven Lusitanization is complemented by other regional blocks which serve both economicand political interests which include the Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP).

It is unlikely that there will ever be a definitive history of Brazil. In this article we have constructed a history of the pro-duction of grammars and dictionaries as artifacts. From our perspective of historiography, the critical issue is not whetherone history is more persuasive than the other, but the degree to which the history is consistent with the assumptions andgoals which the narrators seek to serve.

References

Auroux, S., 1992. A revolução tecnológica da gramatização. [The Technological Revolution of Grammatization]. Unicam, Campinas.Batista, R.O., 2001. Uma história dos estudos sobre a linguagem no Brasil: gramáticas coloniais, diversidade linguística e processos histórico-sociais. Todas

as Letras 13 (1), 112–127.Batista, R.O., 2005. Descrição de línguas indígenas em gramáticas missionárias do Brasil colonial. Revista D.E.L.T.A. 21 (1), 121–147, <http://www.scielo.br/

scielo.php?pid=S0102-44502005000100005andscript=sci_arttext> (accessed 02.12.11).Blommaert, J., 2008. Artefactual ideologies and textual production of African languages. Language & Communication 28 (4), 291–408.Brasil, 1997a. Secretaria de Educação Fundamental. Parâmetros curriculares nacionais: introdução aos parâmetros curriculares nacionais. MEC/SEF, Brasília.Brasil, 1997b. Secretaria de Educação Básica. Guia de livros didáticos: PNLD 2011: Língua Portuguesa. MEC/SEF, Brasília.Buescu, M.L., 1984. Historiografia da língua portuguesa – século XVI. Coleção Nova Universidade, Sá da Costa Editora, Lisboa.Castilhos, A., 1972. Rumos da dialetologia portuguesa. ALFA 18, 115–153, <http://seer.fclar.unesbr/alfa/article/viewFile/3512/3285> (accessed 10.10.11).Cavalcanti, H.B., 2001. O projeto missionário protestante no Brasil do século 19: comparando a experiência presbiteriana e batista. Revista de Estudos da

Religião 4, 61–93, <http://www.pucsbr/rever/rv4_2001/p_cavalc.pdf> (accessed 01.12.11).Daher, A., 1998. Escrita e conversão: a gramática tupi e os catecismos bilíngües no Brasil do século XVI. Revista Brasileira de Educação 8, 31–43.de Certeau, M., 1988. The Writing of History. Columbia University Press, New York.de Lima, M.C., 2001. Breve história da Igreja no Brasil. Loyola, São Paulo.de Oliveira, M.A., 2008. Entre a coroa e a cruz: a igreja colonial sob a égide do padroado. Mneme – Revista de Humanidades 9(24), 1–14 (Caicó: UFRN).

<http://www.cerescaico.ufrn.br/mneme/anais> (accessed 01.12.12).de Oliveira, M., 2009. Para a história social da língua portuguesa em São Paulo: séculos XVI–XVII. In: Castilho, A.T. (Ed.), História do português paulista.

Unicamp/Publicações IEL, Campinas, pp. 185–208.de Oliveira, J., Freire, C.A. da R., 2006. A presença indígena na formação do Brasil. Ministério da Educação, Secretaria de Educação Continuada, Alfabetização e

Diversidade. LACED/Museu Nacional, Brasília.Errington, J., 2008. The Linguistic in the Colonial: A Story of Language, Meaning, and Power. Blackwell, Oxford.Fávero, L.L., 2001. Gramática é a arte. In: Orlandi, E. (Ed.), História das idéias linguísticas: construção do saber metalingüístico e a constituição da língua

nacional. Pontes e Unemat, Campinas e Cáceres, pp. 89–100.Fernandes, Gonçalo., 2013. A Língua Geral de Mina (1731/1741), de António da Costa Peixoto. Confluência 43 (1), 30–48.Fialho, C.F., Nascimento, A.C., 2009. O uso da língua terena e a identidade indígena terena na aldeia Ipegue-Aquidauana MS. III Seminário Povos Indígenas e

Sustentabilidade: saberes locais, educação e autonomia, 1. Campo Grande: UCDB, 01–12.Filho, E.A., 2008. Tradução e sincretismo nas obras de José de Anchieta. PhD diss.. University of San Paulo..Foucault, M., 1966/1990. The order of things. Routledge, New York.Foucault, M., 1980a. The confession of the flesh. In: Gordon, C. (Ed.), Power/Knowledge Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Pantheon, New York, pp.

194–228.Foucault, M., 1980b. On popular justice: a discussion with maoists. In: Gordon, C. (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Random

House, New York, pp. 1–36.Foucault, M., 2000. Omnes et Singulatim: toward a critique of political reason. In: Faubion, J. (Ed.), Power: Essential Works of Foucault: 1954–1984. New

Press, New York.Foucault, M., 2007. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78. Palgrave Macmillan, London.



Foucault, M., 2010. The Government of Self and Others: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1982–1983. Picador, New York.Franco, S.A., 2007. Reformas pombalinas e o iluminismo em Portugal. Revista de História e Estudos Culturais 4 (4), 1–14.Freyre, G., 1933/2003. Casa-grande and senzala: formação da família brasileira sob o regime da economia patriarcal. Global, São Paulo.Huzioka, L.L., 2010. Diálogos entre colonialidade e feminismo: para uma abordagem latino-americana. Anais do Fazendo Gênero 9: Diásporas, diversidades,

deslocamentos, 1–10, <http://fazendogenero.ufsc.br> (accessed 08.12.11).Irvine, J., 2008. Subjected words: African linguistics and the colonial encounter. Language & Communication 28 (4), 291–408.Jecupé, K.W., 2001. Tupã Tenondé: a criação do Universo, da Terra e do Homem segundo a tradição oral Guarani. Peirópolis, São Paulo.Kury, L., 2001. Viajantes naturalistas no Brasil oitocentista: experiência, relato e imagem. História, Ciências, Saúde. Manguinhos 8 (suplemento), 863–880.Lahuerta, F.M., 2006. Viajantes e a construção de uma idéia de Brasil no ocaso da colonização (1808–1822). Revista Lectrónica de Geografía Y Ciencias

Sociales 218 (64), <http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-218-64.htm> (accessed 09.12.11).Lefevere, A., 2003. Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook. Routledge, London.Lestringant, F., 2000. De Jean de Léry a Claude Lévi-Strauss: por uma arqueologia de Tristes trópicos. Revista de Antropologia 43 (2), 81–103, <http://

www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttextandpid=S0034-77012000000200005> (accessed 02.12.11).Lopes da Silva, F., 2006. Freyre and Foucault: Casa-Grande and Senzala como microfísica do poder. Fênix – Revista de História e Estudos Culturais 3 (3), 1–20.Maher, T.M., 2010. Políticas Linguísticas e Políticas de Identidade: currículo e representações de professores indígenas na Amazônia Ocidental brasileira.

Currículo sem Fronteiras 10, 33–48.Makoni, S., 2011. Language and human rights discourses: lessons from the African experience. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 1–20.Makoni, S., 2013. An intergrationist perspective on colonial linguistics. Journal of Language Sciences 35, 87–96.Makoni, S., Pennycook, A. (Eds.), 2007. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.Makoni, S.B., Brutt-Griffler, Mashiri, 2007. The use of ‘indigenous’ and urban vernaculars in Zimbabwe. Language in Society 36 (1), 25–49.Mariani, B.S.C., 2001. A institucionalização da língua, história e cidadania no Brasil do século XVIII: o papel das academias literárias e da política do marquês

de pombal. In: Orlandi, E. (Ed.), História das ideias lingüísticas: construção do saber metalingüísitco e constituição da língua nacional. Pontes, Campinas,pp. 99–124.

Mariani, B.S.C., 2004. Colonização Lingüística. Ed. Pontes, Campinas, Brasil.Martins, N.S., 2008. Século XIX. In: Spina, S. (Ed.), História da Língua Portuguesa. Ateliê Editorial, Cotia, SP.Massini-Cagliari, G., 2004. Language policy in Brazil: monolingualism and linguistic prejudice. Language Policy 3 (1), 3–23.Munduruku, D., 2013. A escrita e a autoria fortalecendo a identidade. Povos indígenas no Brasil. <http://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/c/iniciativas-indigenas/

autoria-indigena/a-escrita-e-a-autoria-fortalecendo-a-identidade> (accessed 16.04.13).Nincao, O.S., 2009. Somos Acadêmicos: professores Terena como agentes de uma política lingüística local de proteção da língua indígena. Web revista

página de debates: questões de linguística e linguagem 1, 1–16.Pagotto, E., 1999. Norma e condescendência; ciência e pureza. Línguas – instrumentos linguísticos. Pontes, Campinas.Pompa, M.C., 2001. Religião como tradução: Missionários, Tupi e Tapuia no Brasil colonial. PhD diss.. University of Campinas.Quijano, A., 2000. Colonialidad del poder, eurocentrismo y América Latina. Colonialidad del saber, eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales. CLACSO-UNESCO, 201–

245.Rajagopalan, K., 2008. The role of geopolitics in language planning and language politics in Brazil. Current Issues in Language Planning. 9 (2), 179–192.Rezende, T.F., 2011. Entre a senzala, o tijupá e a escola: a questão linguístico- identitária entre as/os tapuia do Carretão-Goiás. XI Congresso luso-afro-

brasileiro de ciências sociais, 1–16.Schwarcz, L.M., 2008. O espetáculo das raças: Cientistas, instituições e pensamento racial no Brasil: 1870–1930. Companhia das Letras, São Paulo.Severo, C.G., 2013. A diversidade linguística como questão de governo. Calidoscópio (UNISINOS) 11, 2.Zwartjes, O., 2011. Portuguese Missionary Grammars in Asia, Africa and Brazil, 1550–1800. John Benjamin’s, Amsterdam.


Language Communication Severo Makoni 2013

Documents

Transcript of Language Communication Severo Makoni 2013